Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

Tamila Arnania-Kepuladze (Georgia, Czech Rebublic)

Gender stereotypes and gender feature of job motivation:

differences or similarity?
Abstract
It is widely recognized today that aimful management of human resources to deal depends on employees working
motivation. One of the ways to increase the economic efficiency of staff organization performance is to incarnate a new
approach to motivation management.
In as much as the position of women in the labor market has changed significantly due to their wide involvement into
the workforce and as far as womens participation in economic life is permanently increasing in recent years,
understanding of gender feature of motivation has become of great importance today.
Based on the general theory of motivation and on the survey of contemporary literature of gender motivation
peculiarities, this study examines the gender features of motivation concerning the gender stereotypes and includes
investigation of masculine characteristics such as opportunity for advancement, opportunity for high earning,
responsibility and autonomy and feminine characteristics such as personal life time, co-operation and environment.
Using the results of a questionnaire which was conducted in organizations of education and public health service
system, we have defined the gender features in motivation. Our data do not confirm the stereotypical notions of gender
differences usually reported in the literature and have shown that differences within each sex group are greater than
between sexes. This study was examined within the Georgian context.
Keywords: gender, motivation, stereotypes.
JEL Classification: J01, J16, M51, M54.

Introduction
Successful performance of any organization first of
all depends on usage of the available resources, with
human resources being the most important. Aimful
management of human resources is to a great degree
connected to employees working motivation.
Employees motivation has become a determining
factor of the organizational success in recent years.
Literature and popular press often report that
compensation of work and other material factors are
the basis of working activity among employees of
today. But such simplistic approach fails to
represent the actual state of affairs. Motivation of
working activity is much more complex since
different people have different needs and desires
which means they are differently motivated.
Understanding of employees activity goals,
motivation of their economic behavior is closely
connected to personnel management problem and
greatly influences the enterprise performance.
Today women occupy a significant place in
employment sphere and their participation in
economic life is permanently increasing.
Undervaluing and misunderstanding of womens job
motivation lead to underutilization of womens
skills and experience and to loss of the named
resource for both the organization and the society as
a whole. Therefore, understanding of gender
features of motivation becomes very important.
Gender stereotypes play a significant role in the
processes of gender motivation evaluation.
Tamila Arnania-Kepuladze, 2010.

84

Gender stereotypes as a set of shared beliefs

prescribe men and women to behave and be
motivated in a certain manner.
Would one expect that men and women will be
always motivated according to gender stereotype or
is the question much more complex? What factors
play a key role in shaping and reinforcing
employees work behavior? We intend to investigate
the relevance of usage of prevailing gender
stereotypes as one finds them reported in the
literature dealing with motivation of the employees.
Being aware of motivations gender features
promotes more effective influence and usage of staff
possibilities for the benefits of organization as well
as an employee himself.
So, it is evident that more thorough study and
systematization of motivation need to be done.
Approach to motivation is usually underpinned by
motivation theory. That is why, the examination of
motivation theories evolution from methodological
point of view is very important.
1. General fundamentals of motivation theory
Motivation theories and their modifications
distinguish various opinions on motivations origin
nature. Many contemporary approaches to
motivation study are based on Abraham Maslows
investigations, which result from study of humans
needs as a basic behavior motive (Maslow A.,
1943). Maslow disposes all needs in certain
succession called hierarchy of needs where the first
two groups (physiological needs and safety needs)
are primary or lower level needs. The three next

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

groups of needs (social needs, recognition needs and

self-realization needs) are secondary or higher level
needs. According to Maslow, humans efforts first
of all are directed to satisfaction of lower level
needs and then to secondary, higher level needs
satisfaction.
Frederick Herzberg tried to modify Maslows theory
of needs. It is important for Herzberg to
understand what people want from their jobs, how
material and non-material factors influence the
motivation of human behavior. So he created the
motivation two-factor model, or Hygiene theory.
According to this theory, the extrinsic motivators
or hygiene factors (security, salary, work
conditions, company policy and administration)
and intrinsic motivators (prospective promotion,
responsibility, challenges, recognition and
achievement) affect feeling of satisfaction from job
(Herzberg F., 1968).
David McClelland recognized three types of
motivation needs: need for power, need for
popularity and need for success. According to his
theory, need for power is typical for people who like
being in the focus, affecting the others. They are
energetic, adhering to principles, vigorous. Need for
popularity is typical for people who are sociable.
They are driven by affiliation and recognition. And
just affiliation and social recognition provide them
with motivation. Need for success is typical for
people who are driven by the challenge of success.
To complete their activity successfully is very
important for them. They consider risk and the tasks
they choose neither quite easily achievable, nor so
complicated to become unachievable at all
(McClelland David C., 1970).
Apart from the theory of motivation needs, a theory
of motivation process exists which can be accepted
as that of a great use for management.
One of the elements of motivation process theory
is Victor Vrooms theory of expectations.
According to this theory, the employees are more
motivated to perform better when they are sure
that their efforts will lead to a high performance
rating. On examination of work motivation the
expectations
theory
envisages
three
interdependences: efforts and performance,
performance and reward, reward and personal
goal. Motivation is more effective when employee
is sure that his efforts lead to fair reward.
Motivation is reduced when employee is given
low appreciation of success or value of reward
(Vroom Victor H., 1964).
According to J.S. Adams equity theory, people are
motivated by their belief in justice of reward. People

have tendency to use subjective assessment to

compare their efforts and rewards with those of
other groups of people. When an individual feels
that his efforts are not rewarded equally, he reduces
the efforts. Adams considers that not equitable
rewards and over-equitable rewards act as
demotivative factor. When rewards are equitable
they provoke adequate (normal) reaction.
The synthetical theory of motivation was elaborated
by W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler. The theory was
based on Vrooms expectations theory and Adams
equity theory. According to Porter and Lawler,
motivation is the function of needs, expectations and
justice of reward. Porter and Lawler consider that
employees output depends on: his efforts, his
typical features and potential possibilities,
employees self-estimation and assessment of value
of reward.
Douglas McGregor proceeded from the opinion that
people can be managed in two ways depending on
types of people themselves. Thus, McGregors
conception includes two theories: X-theory and
Y-theory. X-theory (properly Taylors theory)
considers that human is lazy by his nature, he does
not enjoy working and he attempts to avoid working
when possible. According to Y-theory, people are
quite different and defined by contrast peculiar
characteristics. Human usually intends to take
responsibility, initiative, ingenuity, self-dependence.
Y-theory assumes that high-order needs dominate
people.
In 1981 Y-theory was transferred by William
Ouchi into the Z-theory. This theory generalizes the
Japanese
experience
of
human
resource
management. According to it, each employee is free
and works for himself. Such perception creates
feeling of coincidence of both the employees and
the companys goals.
Most of the different motivation theories are too
often underpinned by simplistic assumption of
motive power and have been criticized widely for
generalization of work goals and human behavior.
Proceeding from the idea that different people are
motivated in different ways it is necessary to render
this problem more specifically.
General theory of motivaton is supplemented by
examining of motivation peculiarities in different
countries and ethnic groups. Researchers have
investigated
national
and
social-cultural
characteristics connected with the performance
rewards and influence on motivation. The results of
the investigation showed (Rehu, M., Kusk, E., Wolf,
B. 2006; Marjaana Gunkel, Edward J. Lusk, Birgitta
Wolff, Fang Li, 2007) cross-countries cultural
85

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

differences. Researching multinational corporations

in Germany, China, Japan and USA, Marjaana et al.
(2007) found some interstate differences in the
notion of importance of work-related matters and
performance reward. The authors came to the
conclusion that cultural aspect might be the main
reason for the differences shown.
One of the important aspects of motivation problem
is examination of gender feature of job motivation.
There are lots of researches focused on investigating
the peculiarities of females and males motivational
behavior (Meece et al., 2006; Horner, 2005; Patton
W. et al., 2001; Luzzo D. 1995; Bigoness, W.J.
1988; Dubinsky, A.J. et al., 1993; Gooderman P. et
al., 2004; Major, Konar, 1984; Jaffee, S., Hyde, J.S.
2000, etc). Results of the studies can be ranged from
the differences between womens and mens work
values through domination of gender homogeneity
up to the samples of behavior that run counter to
gender stereotypes.
2. General fundamentals of gender stereotypes
2.1.
Gender
stereotypes
and
gender
characteristics of men and women. Investigations
of gender motivation differences are based on the
idea of the differences between males and females,
i.e. on the existence of gender stereotypes, which
can be traced back to historical context of males
hegemony proceeding from the perception of
priority based on sex differences and collaterality of
qualitative differences of human beings.
Gender stereotypes as well as other kinds of social
stereotypes, like ethnical, cultural, political,
professional, etc., reflect the features of perception
and relationship of one group of people (in our case
men and women) towards themselves and others.
The gender stereotypes or system of social
behavioral norms are very significant institutional
mechanism which orient men and women on
different life strategies and prescribe them binary
oppositional roles in the family and public spheres.
According to some investigations (Deaux K.,
Emsweller T., 1974), gender-based stereotypes are
stronger than racial-based ones and they produce
pressure to be beared by certain social groups, men
and women, who are obliged to submit them.
Giving up the idea of gender stereotypes implies the
recognition of biological determinism, the support
of psychoanalytical ideas based on the belief that all
womans and mans traits prove to be innated.
According to this perception, a typical man and a
typical woman have different psychology,
possibilities, values, interests, social predestinations,
roles, needs and, therefore, are motivated
differently. Thus, the most distinctive attributes
86

supposed for a typical man are strength,

confidence, activity, aggression, autonomy,
resoluteness.
According
to
gender-based
stereotypes, man should possess some manhood
distinguishing features. He is logical, initiative, his
thoughts tend to generalization and abstractness, he
is rational, imperious and commanding, focused on
goal achievement and competence.
A typical woman is characterized by compliance,
care, perceiving, devotion, patience. Woman should
be womanhood, i.e. passive, responsive, kindhearted, obedient, dutiful, with submission and
obedience aknowledged as her destination.
One may single out the binary oppositions
stereotypically prescribed to men and women, to
masculinity and feminity: active passive, dynamic
static, conscious unconscious, logical
intuitivical, abstract concrete. Proceeding from
gender stereotypes theory men and women have
different goals and needs and, therefore, are
motivated differently. Gender stereotypes prescribe
playing certain gender roles to both men and
women. Men are independence-oriented, longing for
power and authority, self-assertion, popularity,
success. Therefore, the primary sphere of mens
occupation is public activity. As for women, interpersonal relations, environment, life style and
family seem to be of more importance for them. So,
gender stereotypes prescribe a woman to activities
in her private sphere mainly, i.e. only secondary
roles are being left for her. Gender-role stereotypes
are often used to explain why female and male are
motivated differently and why they behave in this or
that certain way.
2.2. Upbringing and gender stereotypes. An
important part in development and supporting of
gender
stereotypes
belongs
to
humans
consciousness. A direct interrelatedness between
gender stereotypes and upbringing of children in
families and schools is quite obvious.
In a great number of investigations one can easily
come across the idea (Cross, S.E. and Markus, H.R.,
1993; Simon, R.W. and Nath, L.E., 2004; Pomeroy,
A., 2005) that the process of shaping and manifestation
of gender social role begins in childhood. Later on,
according to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, I.,
1991), the boys and the girls different behavioral
models, interests and needs are being formed (Morris,
Venkatesh, Ackerman, 2005). Such perception,
supported by family and school becomes apparent in
adult life. On a workplace, perception of such a kind
demonstrates different behavioral types when men and
women in a quite different way appreciate the
importance of their work goals, have different
preferences and performance motivation.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

Childrens gender identification is regularly shaped

by family environment and takes an important part
in the development of gender difference in
motivation. Parents influence the process of their
children socialization to a significant extent (Eccles
et al. 1983; Meece et al., 2006; Parsons et al., 1984;
Parsons et al., 1990).
The upbringing process inside the family is being
manifested in two ways. On the one side, their
parents gender behavioral model has a great
influence on the children: children adopt their
parents` behavior. Girls adopt feminity behavior
model from their mothers while boys adopt
masculinity behavior model from fathers.
On the other side, parents constantly keep influencing
their daughters and sons in this or that certain way.
They encourage their female child to play with dolls
and laud daughters to behave in a way it is expected
from them according to the female model. Parents
encourage their male child to play with toy cars,
model railways, football etc. and praise them for
behaving according to the male role model. As a
result, young people perceive gender roles as a
permanent status a-priori. More than that, as Eccles
et al. (Eccles et al., 1983) observed parents holding
gender stereotypes to develop different expectations
and goals for daughters and sons, encourage them to
different activities and skills. In turn, cultural and
gender stereotypes make parents form their
childrens certain beliefs concerning their
possibilities and abilities. This way, for example,
parents, particularly fathers, in spite of their
childrens achievements in mathematics and sciences,
believe that daughters need to work harder (Parsons,
Adler, Meece, 1982) and show less confidence in their
daughters mathematics abilities but much more
confidence in their sons mathematics, physics etc.
abilities (Jacobs, 2004). Parents are pretty sure that
their daughters need more assistance in mathematics
and science and try to do their best to involve
daughters in mathematics activities (Bleeker and
Jacobs, 2004).
School also plays an important role in shaping
childrens genderal consciousness (Meece, Glienke
and Burg, 2006). A number of studies indicate that
gender differences in motivation are evident early at
school and that girls and boys motivation-related
beliefs and behavior models follow gender
stereotypes. Teachers have higher expectation of
boys achievements (Meece, 1982). The opinion exists
that a girls success results from her abilities rather
than from her efforts. Some researches (Green,
DeBacker, 2004) suggest that gender is an important
motivating factor in mastering science.

Gender stereotype-based perceptions, beliefs and

expectations of parents and teachers definitely
influence activities and occupation choice in girls and
boys, impact their interests, career and achievements
(Bleeker, Jacobs, 2004; Jacobs, Chin and Bleeker).
Such relationships and beliefs are durative,
supported by schools and colleges curriculum,
literature, mass media, advertisements, etc.
3. Gender stereotype and gender features of
motivation
3.1. Motivation and gender differences. Gender
stereotypes adherents consider that on work place
men and women are also taking various preferences,
goals and are motivated in a different way. The
satisfaction of stereotypical masculine needs such as
economic success, autonomy and achievement is
more typical for men. Hence, for men earnings,
freedom, advancement, challenge, possibility to use
skills etc. are more significant performance
motivators. According to gender stereotypical
model, women should fulfill family needs and care
of the quality of their family life. So, for women
interpersonal relationship, security, fringe benefits,
environment etc. should be more important.
Gender stereotypes influence mens and womens
achievements and goal orientation. While
investigating various achievement domains, Meece,
Glienke and Burg found out that gender differences
in achievement motivation still exist (Meece,
Glienke, Burg, 2006, p. 366). Moreover, some
representatives of achievement motivation theory,
focusing on differences in mens and womens
success orientation, came to the conclusion that
women are rather highly motivated to avoid
success, because they are likely to expect negative
consequences, like social rejection and/or feeling of
being unfeminine (Horner, 2005, p. 207).
Some scientists suggest that different motivation on
success at work which is constantly shown by males
and females is based on gender stereotypes. So,
Hofstede (2001) came to the conclusion that while
mens concerns are mostly earnings, promotion and
responsibility, women value friendly atmosphere
and usually concern prestige, challenge, task
significance, job security, co-operation and their
work environmental conditions. Bigoness (1988)
found out that men usually emphasize salary while
women`s emphasis is on professional growth. Major
and Konar (1984) demonstrating the differences,
stressed that women usually pay less attention to
salary than men do. Reif et al. (1976) examined
significance of 33 particular rewards for men and
women and found that gender was the determining
factor of appreciation of the value of reward.
87

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

Gooderman et al. (2004) have also discovered that

men prove to be much more financially motivated
than women do.
Thus, investigation of gender stereotypes-based
motivation leads to the conclusion that mens
economic behavior motivation can be characterized
as a tend to earning, autonomy of work, promotion,
recognition, success and training. Alternatively,
womens motivation could be characterized as
aiming to co-operation, working conditions and a
good living area, fringe benefits, etc. concerns.
3.2. Motivation and gender similarity. The
polarity of men and women roles and their
position in private and public life as well as
absolute disparateness of their economic behavior
are refuted by series of investigations. According
to some researches, females and males are
characterized by rather similarities than
differences. Gender similarities adherents prove
that males and females are not similar in all, but
in most.
Similar opinions have been expressed still in early
1900s. Thus, Thorndike (1914) believed that
psychological differences between males and
females were too little as compared with withingender variations. Viewing available researches on
gender differences in mental traits, Hollingworth
(1918) found little evidence on gender differences.
Contemporary researches proceed from the idea
that the differences are more obvious within each
gender group than between them. Some authors
believe that the magnitude and even the direction
of gender differences depend on the context
(Bettencourt, B.A., Miller, 1996), while gender
differences in most aspects of life, in moral
reasoning and moral orientation are little (Jaffee, S.,
Hyde, J.S., 2000).
Research by Dubinsky, Joison, Michaels, Kotabe
and Lim (Dubinsky, A.J., et al., 1993) showed that
rather minimal differences in motivation exist
between men and women. Pearson and Chatterjee
(2002) while examining experience of China, came
to the conclusion that despite divergences, gender
uniformity in job motivation of men and women
dominated. They share the same attitudes as to high
earnings, training opportunities, work autonomy,
usage of skills, desirable living area, relations with
managers, etc.
The investigations in the fields of psychology,
sociology, etc. found that gender differences do not

88

exceed 10% and are situation-dependent (Basow, S.A.,

1986; Hyde, J.S., 1991; Spence, J.T., 1993).
3.3. Motivation against gender stereotypes.
Contrary to stereotypical expectations, Marjaana
Gunkel, Edward J. Lusk, Birgitta Wolff and Fang
Li find that gender differences back to front.
According to their research, men in Japan value
more highly not only the masculine work attribute
of advancement but also the following feminine
factors: fringe benefits and personal time. In
contrast, Japanese women value more highly not
only physical working conditions but also the
challenging work that is supposed to be valued
more highly by men. (Marjaana Gunkel et al.,
2007). The authors concluded that men do not
obligatory display traditionally stereotypical
masculine factors and, similarly, women do not
always display traditionally feminine factors
suggested.
Gender differences, which did not follow usual
stereotypes were investigated by other studies as
well. Some of the researchers arrived at a
conclusion that in modern society women tend to
be more career-oriented than men do (Patton et al.,
2001, Luzzo D., 1995), so female rather than men
more likely believe science to be relevant to their
career (Luzzo D., 1995).
Thus, a great number of authors appear to be clear
in the idea that no consistent pattern supporting
gender stereotypes can be observed (Marjaana
Gunkel et al., 2007).
It is quite evident that two opposite views exist
regarding the discrepancy between gender motivation
and gender stereotypes. The first results from the idea
that men and women are motivated and act in nonconcordance with their gender stereotypes. The
discrepancy can be ranged from little similarity
between male and females motivation up to the idea
of motivations absolute similarity. The second states
that men and womens economic behavior is often
based on motivations which stereotypically are
ascribed to the opposite sex.
Hence, as it was shown, there is no common opinion
concerning the gender feature of motivation in
economic literature. These opinions fluctuate from
recognition of the strict differences of men and
womens job motivation, from their conformation to
gender stereotypes up to the complete identity and
yet to manifestation of motivation contradicting
gender stereotypes at all (see Figure 1).

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

Fig. 1. Gender feature of motivation in gender stereotypes context: theoretical approach

A great variety of gender features of motivation can

be explained by a number of reasons. I would note
some of them:
i multidimensionality and insufficient maturity of
the methodology of study;
i variability over a space, i.e. traditional and
cultural aspects of different countries
significantly influence the gender feature of
motivation;
i transformation over a time, i.e. mens and
particularly womens behavior motivation has
been significantly metamorphosed on each stage
of historical development deeply influenced by
various reasons;
i variability of external environment, i.e.
variability of economical, social, cultural, moral
etc. conditions influencing the motivation; and
i transformation of internal environment of
motivation subject, i.e. changes in perception of
persons gender-stereotypical role and of the
subjection to follow it.
The consideration of stereotypically-defined gender
feature in job motivation shows large motivation
fluctuations from absolute similarity with gender
stereotypes (Pearson, C.A.L., Chatterjee, S.R., 2002;
Jaffee, S., Hyde, J.S., 2000; Bettencourt, B.A.,
Miller, 1996; Dubinsky, A.J. et al., 1993) to
absolute dissimilarity from gender stereotypes
(Meece, Glienke, Burg, 2006; Horner, 2005;
Bigoness, 1988; Gooderman et al., 2004) within
each gender group and allows us to suppose that the
job motivation differences inside sex groups are
rather substantial than those between the groups
themselves.
Our study may help to define this aspect of work
motivation as well as to investigate which situation
is more typical for men and women employed in
Georgia and to identify the aspects of their labor
activities motivation.

4. Method
4.1. Objective. This research purpose is to make the
gender analysis of employment sphere in Georgia
(Arnania-Kepuladze T., 2009) a country where
gender studies are doing their first steps and
revealing how much it corresponds to the tendencies
which exist in other countries and what its features
are. Do gender stereotypes play a key role in
shaping and reinforcing men and women job
motivation? To what extent do gender stereotypes
predetermine employees work activity?
Based on the perceptions that a typical man and a
typical woman have different job values, interests,
social predestination, needs and play different roles
in public and private lives, we have examined
gender features of motivation concerning the gender
stereotypes which are considered the most popular
in special literature (Marjaana G. et al., 2007;
Bigoness, 1988; Hofstede, 2001; Major, Konar,
1984 etc.) and, according to our viewpoint, are more
expressive stereotypical gender features that include
masculine characteristics such as opportunity for
advancement, opportunity for high earning,
responsibility and autonomy and feminine
characteristics such as personal life time, cooperation and environment and job security.
4.2. Participants and methodology. The full-time
hired employees in education and public health
service system in Georgia took part in the study.
The choice of this category was deliberate.
Considering the variety of forms and conditions of
employment for reception of more concrete results
we chose the organizations from economic branches
which are considered as branches with mainly
female employees.
The sample of 675 participants took part in the
study. Among them 539 were females and 136 were
males. Such gender proportion of participants
expresses situation in this economic branches where
89

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

there work about 4 times more women than men.

359 participants worked in educational sphere and
included 72 men and 287 women, and 316
participants worked in public health service system
from which there were 252 women and 64 men.

4.3. Measures. Each answer has key ranged from (-3)

to (+3) and was estimated on a seven-point scale
ranging from (-3), which specifies respondents full
disagreement to (+3), which specifies respondents
absolute agreement with the asked question.

Participants ranged in age from 23 to 58. In

educational sphere females average age was 39
years and males average age was 38 years. In
public health service system sphere females
average age was 37 years and males mean age
was 42 years. In the both spheres males average
age was 40 years and womens average age was
38. All participants average age in both spheres
was 39 years.

For each question, the minimum and maximum values

have been defined separately for men and for women.
Such differentiation has shown the marginal
estimations of the importance of each indicator of
motivation and amplitude of fluctuation of
respondents opinions concerning each question and
by each gender group.

Participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire,

remaining anonymous and not to put their names on
the surveys.
Questionnaire involved six groups of questions
which were given inconsequently and were divided
into subscales for estimation (according to gender
stereotypes notions) masculine characteristics such
as opportunity for advancement (included 5 items),
opportunity for high earning (included 5 items),
responsibility and autonomy (included 5 items) and
feminine characteristics such as time to personal
life (included 4 items), co-operation and
environment (included 5 items) and stability and job
security (included 5 items). Participants rated their
responses to each item on a seven-point scale
ranging from A (strongly agree) to G (strongly
disagree).
The participants were grouped by gender and by
economic sector.

If the respondents fluctuation given by answers has

a positive deviation, it means that the importance of
this indicator is significant for him. The closer the
estimation of an investigated question comes to
(+3), the more important it is for the respondent. If
estimation has negative deviation, it means that the
given factor does not operate as motivator and the
nearer the value comes to (-3), the smaller value this
factor has for the respondent.
Further an arithmetic middling (Average value) has
been deduced by each question which has shown an
average estimation of a question for each gender
group. By introducing this index we have defined
the average value of each group of questions for
respondents.
We had carried out the calculation of the minimum
and maximum estimations and average indexes for
each group of questions and for each gender group
separately.
The results of final calculations are given in Table 1.

Table 1. The results of final calculations

Education system

Max value

Average value Male

Average value Female

Min value

Max value

Min value

Max value

Average value Male

Average value Female

Average value Male

Average value Female

Female

Min value

Male

Max value

Female

Total

Min value

Male

Health service system

Opportunity for advancement

-2

-2

0.71

-2

-3

0.87

1.58

0.94

1.15

Opportunity for high earning

-3

-3

0.24

0.2

-3

-3

0.1

0.34

0.13

0.22

Responsibility and autonomy

-3

-3

-0.5

0.4

-3

-3

-0.002

-0.47

-0.2

-0.1

Time to personal life

-3

-3

0.17

-0..05

-2

-3

-0.5

-1.04

-0.16

-0.55

Co-operation and environment

-3

-3

0.56

0.85

-2

-3

0.66

0.45

0.61

0.65

Stability and job security

-2

-3

-0.1

0.5

-2

-3

0.73

0.59

0.31

0.55

90

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

5. Results
As it has been shown, the interviewed women have
given maximum (from -3 to +3) amplitude (width)
in an estimation of both masculine and feminine
characteristics of motivation. The exception was
made only by estimation Opportunity for
advancement" where women have shown less
estimation (-2) in the educational system only. Men
have shown the width too but not maximum
amplitude in an estimation in both education and
health service systems and in both masculine and
feminine groups of questions.
5.1. Evaluation of masculine characteristics of
motivation. 5.1.1. Evaluation of masculine
characteristics of motivation in the education
system. In the educational system men have
estimated the typical masculine indicators of
motivation
such
as
Opportunity
for
advancement and Opportunity for high earning
above women but the Responsibility and
autonomy have been estimated by women above
that men have done. For men the Responsibility
and autonomy had a negative estimation and was
a non-motivation factor.
5.1.2. Evaluation of masculine characteristics of
motivation in the health service system. In the health
service system we have another picture: women
have estimated masculine characteristics such as
Opportunity for advancement and Opportunity
for high earning above men (for women, the
estimation of these characteristics was, respectively,
1.58 and 0.34, and for men 0.87 and 0.1). A masculine
sign of motivation Responsibility and autonomy has
appeared as non-motivation for women (their average
estimation of this parameter has been (-0.47)), and for
men (-0.002).
5.1.3.
General
evaluation
of
masculine
characteristics of motivation. All in all, in the given
sample of respondents masculine motivation
indicators such as Opportunity for advancement
and Opportunity for high earning have been
estimated by women (1.15 and 0.22, respectively)
above, than by men (0.94 and 0.13), and
Responsibility and autonomy has been recognized
as a motivator neither by women nor men.
5.2. Evaluation of feminine characteristics of
motivation. 5.2.1. Evaluation of feminine
characteristics of motivation in the educational
system. In the educational system feminine factor
such as Time to personal life has been more
significant for men (their average estimation of this
factor was 0.17), than for women who have
estimated this factor at -0.5, i.e. for women the
factor Time to personal life was a non-motivator.

The parameter Co-operation and environment has

been estimated by women at 0.85. Contrary to
gender stereotypes, this parameter was significant
for men too: they estimated this factor at 0.56. The
motivator Stability and job security for workers in
education system completely corresponded to genderstereotypical representations: for women its
motivational value was positive, though also not so
high (+0.5), and for men it was negative and though
also not so low (-0.1).
5.2.2. Evaluation of feminine characteristics of
motivation in the health service system. In the health
service system the factor Time to personal life had
negative value, i.e. was not motivation factor either
for men (-0.16) or for women (-0.55), and women
have attached its even smaller significance than
men. Values of indicator such as Co-operation and
environment just as Stability and job security
have been estimated by men in public health
services system above (0.66 and 0.73, respectively),
than women (0.45 and 0.59), i.e. these factors were
the motivators for both men and women.
5.2.3.
General
evaluation
of
feminine
characteristics of motivation. Generally the sample
Time to personal life has not been estimated
positively either by women or men. In estimation of
Co-operation and environment the opinions of
women and men were almost identical (estimation
of men was 0.61, estimation of women was 0.65).
The value of Stability and job security has been
estimated generally by men above (0.31) than by
women (0.55).
It means that among men and women there are no
common opinions concerning each group of
questions. As our research has shown, men have not
always given more value to gender-typical
masculine attributes of motivation, and feminine
factors of motivation such as Stability and job
security were almost as significant for them as for
women. As to women such typical masculine
indicators of motivation such as Opportunity for
advancement and Opportunity for high earning
have been estimated by women above men.
Thus, results of our research coincide with the data
received by Marjaana Gunkel, Edward J. Lusk,
Birgitta Wolff and Fang Li (Marjaana G. et al.,
2007), Patton et al. (Patton et al., 2001), Luzzo
(Luzzo D., 1995).
As Table 1 shows, both men and women have given
wide marginal estimation for masculine as well as
for feminine characteristics of motivation which
fluctuated within (-3) or (-2) and (+2) or (+3). Such
range of evaluations indicates that there are
significant differences in the estimations of both
91

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

masculine
and
feminine
job
motivation
characteristics within each gender group and within
own group neither men nor women express similar
attitudes toward job motivation.
More than that, in spite of such wide fluctuation of
marginal estimation of masculine and feminine
characteristics of motivation, the fluctuation of average
estimation of each question and for each gender group
(with the exception of the average value of
Opportunity for advancement for women) stays
within (-1;+1). It means that the marginal viewpoints
are not sporadic and expresses respondents variance
over a matter of job motivation, otherwise, the average
estimation of each question would tend to one of
margin (-3) or (+3).
Based on the above-stated, it is possible to
ascertain that respondents preferences of labor
motivation do not depend on her/his sex but on the
persons feature and the differences inside sex
group are more substantial than those between the
group themselves.
Conclusion
Our research has not confirmed the presence of
direct interrelation between the sex of the person

and stereotypical representations about their

priorities in motivation of labor activity and has not
found the adherence of gender perception about men
and women's economic behavior motivation.
Among men and women there is not common
opinion concerning typical masculine and typical
feminine priority of motivation: men have not
always given more value to gender-typical
masculine attributes of motivation such as
opportunity for advancement, opportunity for high
earning and responsibility and autonomy and
women have not always given more value to
gender-typical feminine attributes of motivation
such as time to personal life, co-operation and
environment and stability and job security. All of
this means that the preferences of labor
motivation do not depend on persons sex but on
his/her feature and the differences existing not
between male and female motivations but within
each sex group.
Preceding from foresaid it is obvious that no
confirmation to genderal stereotypes ideas should be
assumed in human resources management.
Elaboration of individual approach to each
employee will be the main pledge of success.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments and useful suggestions. The author also thanks
the Tomas Bata University in Zlin (Czech Republic) for supporting of this work.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

92

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 2, 179-211.
Arnania-Kepuladze Tamila. (2009). Working Men and Women in Georgia: Gender Wage Gap, Education Level
and Work Motivation. REV 2009, CT, USA.
Basow, S.A. (1986). Gender Stereotypes and Role. Pacific Grove.
Bettencourt, B.A., Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447.
Bigoness, W.J. (1988). Sex differences in job attribute preferences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 139-147.
Bleeker, M.M., Jacobs, J.E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers beliefs matter 12 years later?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1), 97-109.
Cross, S.E. and Markus, H.R. (1993). Gender and culture. In Matsumoto, D. (ed), The Handbook of Culture and
Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 195-222.
Gooderman, P., Nordhaug, O., Ringdal, K. and Birkelund, E. (2004). Job values among future business leaders:
the impact of gender and social background. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20, 3, 277-95.
Green, B.A., DeBacker, T.K. (2004). Gender and orientations toward the future: Link to motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 16, 91-120.
Deaux K., Emsweller T. (1974). Explanations of successful performance of sex-linked tasks: What is skill for male
is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, V. 29, p.80-85.
Dubinsky, A.J., Joison, M.A., Michaels, R.E., Kotabe, M. and Lim, C.U. (1993). Perceptions of motivational
components: salesmen and saleswomen revisited. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 25-37.
Eccles, J.S., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece J.L. (1983). Expectancies, values and
academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives, 75-146. San Francisco: Freeman.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations
Across Nations.
Hollingworth, L.S. (1918). Comparison of the sexes in mental traits. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 427-432.
Herzberg Frederick (1968). One More Time: How Do You Motivate? Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, pp.56-57.
Horner, M.S. (1995). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. In M. Ednick, S.Tangi,
L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Women and achievement. Social and motivational analyses. John Wiley and Sons.

Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 8, Issue 2, 2010

17. Hyde, J.S. (1991). Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Woman. Lexington, MA: D.C. Helth and Company.
18. Jacobs, J.E., Chin, C.S., Bleeker, M.M. (in press). Enduring links: Parents expectations and their young adult
childrens gender-typed occupational choices. Educational Research and Evaluation.
19. Jacobs, J.E. (2004). Influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child mathematics attitudes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83 (4), 518-527.
20. Luzzo, D. (1995). Gender differences in college students career maturity and perceived barriers in career
development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 319-325.
21. Major, B. and Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay expectations and their possible causes.
Academy of Management Journal, 4, 777-792.
22. Marjaana Gunkel, Edward J. Lusk, Birgitta Wolff, Fang Li (2007). Gender-specific Effects at Work: An Empirical
Study of Four Countries. Gender, Work & Organization 14 (1), 56-79.
23. Maslow Abraham (1943). Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
24. Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., Hoyle, R. (1982). Students goal orientations and cognitive engagement in
classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-123.
25. Meece, J.L., Glienke, B.B., Burg S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373.
26. Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V. and Ackerman, P.L. (2005). Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new
technology: an extention to the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52, 1, 69-84.
27. McClelland David C. (1970). Two faces of Power. Journal of International Affairs. Vol.24, 30-41.
28. Parsons, J., Adler, T.F., Meece, J.L. (1982). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 26043.
29. Parsons, J., Adler, T.F. and Kaczala, C.M. (1984). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental
influences. Child Development, 53, 322-339.
30. Parsons, J., Meece, J.L., Adler, T.F. and Kaczala, C.M. (1990). Sex differences in attributions and learned
helplessness. Sex Roles, 8 (4), 421-432.
31. Patton, W., Creed, P. (2001). Developmental issues in career maturity and career decision status. The Career
Development Quarterly, 49, 336-351.
32. Pearson, C.A.L., Chatterjee, S.R. (2002) Gender variations in work goal priorities: a survey of Chinese managers.
International Journal of Management, 535-543.
33. Pomeroy, A. (2005). Are women more ethical than men? HR Magazine, July 2005, 12.
34. Rehu, M., Kusk, E., Wolf, B. (2006). Sustainable human resource management in China: a study of German
multinational corporation. World Review of Entrepreneurship, management and Sustainable Development, 2, 1/2, 57-72.
35. Reif, W.E., Newstrom, J.W., St Louis, R.J. (1976). Sex as a discriminating variable in organizational reward
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 3, 460-76.
36. Simon, R.W. and Nath, L.E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: do men and women differ in selfreports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 5, 1137-76.
37. Spence, J.T. (1993) Gender-Related Traits and Gemder \ideology: Evidence for a Multifactorial Theoty// Journal
of Personality and social Psychology, V.64 (4), 624-35.
38. Thorndike, E.L. (1914). Educational psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
39. Vroom Victor H., (1964). Work and Motivation. New-York, Wiley.

93